With President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, numerous public health leaders are voicing fears that the nation’s premier health agencies will be weakened at a time when the country faces rising threats from infectious diseases, emboldened industry lobbyists and the dangerous consequences of medical misinformation.
If confirmed as secretary of HHS, Kennedy — a proponent of and a self-described — would have oversight of institutions including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Institutes of Health.
Like the two most recently confirmed HHS secretaries, Xavier Becerra and Alex Azar, Kennedy is an attorney with no formal scientific or medical credentials. His purview would include programs and departments he has fiercely criticized in the past, often in ways that opponents say distort or ignore facts and misinterpret science.
Many of the problems Kennedy has publicly said he wants to tackle are concerns shared broadly by healthcare providers, public health officials and members of the public. They include pervasive chronic disease, poor nutrition and the ubiquity of processed foods containing artificial chemicals.
But his nomination has alarmed many public health and medical officials who say they are worried that the solutions Kennedy might deem appropriate could undermine Americans’ health in the long run.
“Putting somebody in charge who is unable to discern the difference between good and bad science is really dangerous for the American people,” said , president and executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
“Yes, there are some things that he supports that we would agree with, but they feel more like the stopped clock that’s right twice a day,” Lurie said, citing food additives as one example. “There are opportunities for small victories. … But overall, it’s dissolved in so many bad ideas that it’s absolutely not worth it.”
Kennedy declined to discuss his plans for HHS with The Times, but he has indicated some priorities for the agency in previous public statements.
For instance, he said Trump would on his first day in office. He he wouldn’t “take away” vaccines, but he would “make sure scientific safety studies and efficacy are out there, and people can make individual assessments about whether that product is going to be good for them.”
More than half a dozen experts who spoke with The Times said Kennedy’s suggestions that the is unsound would undercut public health.
The United States has “the best vaccine safety system in the world,” said said , a former acting CDC director who now leads the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “RFK Jr. has done a lot to undermine confidence in that.”
Indeed, cases of in the U.S. as childhood vaccinations lag, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. The CDC has identified 277 measles cases this year, up from 59 in 2023.
“I don’t want to have to see us go backwards in order to remind ourselves that vaccines work,” , the CDC’s director, at the Milken Institute Future of Health Summit in Washington, D.C.
Kennedy’s zeal to remove fluoride from drinking water on the claim that the mineral causes neurodevelopmental disorders and other health conditions is another example of shirking the best science, said , a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
“That has been looked at carefully and there has ,” Willett said. “On the other hand, there are serious problems with lead in water systems.”
Vaccines and fluoride are just two areas where Kennedy will have an opportunity to implement ideas that lack strong scientific support.
Last month, he decried the FDA’s “aggressive suppression” of unproven health remedies like dietary supplements and ivermectin : “If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.”
But food safety advocates who have shared many of Kennedy’s criticisms about lax regulation said gutting the agency is not the answer. Any effort to reduce or eliminate chemical additives in foods would require experienced staffers to draft new rules and shepherd them through the required regulatory process, said , president of the Environmental Working Group.
“If you’ve gotten rid of all the bureaucrats, who’s going to write the regulation?” Cook said.
Or consider FDA’s reliance on user fees from companies that want the agency to approve its medical products. Such fees make up of the agency’s operating budget. Kennedy and others have criticized such fees, but if those dollars went away, Congress would be unlikely to backfill them, Lurie said.
“Ending user fees is tantamount to starving the agency,” he said. “That would mean a food program that’s limited in what it can do, drugs coming to market more slowly, and vaccines that are even less well-monitored for safety.”
Lurie said he wouldn’t be surprised to see Kennedy task researchers at the National Institutes of Health with looking for damaging side effects of vaccines and elusive benefits of potential therapies that have already been shown to be ineffective, such as chelation as a treatment for autism and ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.
“He seems to think these hold great promise,” Lurie said. “Most of those ideas are sinkholes for government spending, which is ironic given the Trump administration’s purported devotion to efficiency.”
Significant as the HHS role is, Kennedy would still find his powers curtailed by the limits of the agency’s reach — and potentially by the whims of his boss.
Willett said he agrees with Kennedy that the nation’s health is in decline, and that our food and healthcare systems are “in many ways dysfunctional.” He would welcome efforts to crack down on the amount of and to curtail consumption of added sugars, refined grains and sugar-sweetened beverages.
But if Kennedy takes steps like these, “we know for sure he will run into resistance from industry,” Willett said. “It would be interesting to see if he’s prepared to take on Coca-Cola.”
Although Kennedy is passionate about reducing pesticides and other chemicals in foods, it’s up to the Department of Agriculture to regulate pesticide use on crops, and it’s the job of the Environmental Protection Agency to determine what exposure levels are considered safe for people, Cook said. Nor would Kennedy have the power to reform farm subsidies to encourage organic and regenerative agriculture.
“He doesn’t have much purchase on pesticides from his perch,” Cook said. “That’s not really an HHS thing or an FDA thing.”
The FDA does have the authority to regulate the chemicals that come off of food packaging and can find their way into food, and Kennedy could prioritize that, Cook said.
It’s also possible that Kennedy could protect the budgets of the and the , Cook said.
To help him achieve his goals, Kennedy has invited the public to weigh in on people who could fill important roles within the federal government’s health agencies.
Names that have garnered thousands of votes in the of his “Nominees for the People” website include Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, who claimed COVID-19 vaccines , and Dr. Simone Gold, the anti-vaccine Beverly Hills physician whose medical license was suspended after she to unlawfully entering the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Her license has since been .)
Kennedy’s own accession to the HHS secretary post is not yet certain. Cabinet positions are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate, though Trump has suggested that he may use recess appointments to bypass the need for lawmakers’ approval.
, executive director of the American Public Health Assn., said that even if Kennedy wins confirmation, it’s uncertain how long he would remain in Trump’s good graces.
“I remind folks that his first health secretary didn’t last a year,” Benjamin said. “We’ll see what happens here.”
